Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/218

Tarsem Masih - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Katyal

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:218 dated 19.04.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 05.09.2022. 

 

Tarsem Masih aged bout 59 years S/o. Sh. Nazar Masih, R/o. H. No.949, Ward No.10, Tajpur Road, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

•  

1. Shriram General Insurance company Limited, having its head office at E-8, EPIP, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajsthan-302022.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Having its branch office at SCO-18-19, 3^rd Floor, Jandu Tower, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Dinesh Katyal, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

 ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.PB-23K-3525. The complainant got his car insured from the OPs vide policy which was valid from 09.07.2019 to 08.07.2020. On 10.02.2020, the complainant was driving his car from Ludhiana to Chandigarh and on the way near Jandiali Chowk, Chandigarh Road, the car met with an accident as a stray dog suddenly came in front of the vehicle and by rescuing the stray dog, the car went out of control and struck against the divider. In the accident, bumper, bonnet, door of driver side, front mirror/wind screen tyre of the car along with its rim were damaged. A report was lodged with the police of Chowki Ramgarh, P.S. Jamalpur, Ludhiana vide report No.5 dated 14.02.2020. The complainant further informed the OPs about the accident. However, the OPs repudiated the claim vide letter dated 11.05.2020 without any reasonable ground. The complainant got his car repaired from Guru Nanak Motors, Sherpur Byepass, G.T. Road, Ludhiana by spending Rs.80,000/-. The repudiation of the claim on behalf of the OP amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.80,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written filed on behalf of OPs, it has been pleaded that the intimation of the claim for damages to the car by external means was given by the complainant on 02.12.2020 at 07.12 PM. The claim was registered and processed. Mr. Ankish Sharma Surveyor was appointed as surveyor who visited the insured, clicked photographs, collected the claim form, required documents and submitted his report stating that the claim was not payable. According to the surveyor, during the spot survey, it was noticed that the insured vehicle had hit with a truck but as per the police, the accident was caused with the divider and, therefore, the cause of accident was not justified. Thereafter, the surveyor submitted the final report assessing the final liability of Rs.1,01,712/-. On the basis of survey report, the claim was found not payable and was repudiated vide letter dated 11.05.2020. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainant did not formally tendered any evidence but submitted affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C12 in support of the complaint.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

6.                In this case, the claim has been repudiated vide letter Ex. C5. The reason given in the repudiation letter Ex. C5 is that surveyor Ankish Sharma found that the cause of the accident was not justified nor it co-related with the damages occurred to the insured vehicle. Referring to the survey report Ex. R3, the counsel for the OPs has pointed out that the surveyor has mentioned in his report that the vehicle in fact hit against the truck but as per the FIR, the car hit the divider and, therefore the cause of accident was not justified. However, the surveyor has not given any proof of the fact that actually the car had struck against the truck. No detail of the truck much less the registration number of the truck has been mentioned in the surveyor’s report nor the statement of any witness has been attached with the survey report who might have stated before the surveyor that the car had met with accident with a truck. Apart from the mere observation that the car had hit a truck, the surveyor has not explained as to how he had arrived at a conclusion that the car had actually met with an accident involving a truck and not with the divider only. However, the damage to the car is not disputed. In the absence of any concrete proof led by the OPs or the surveyor that that car had met with accident with a truck, the repudiation of the claim on the grounds mentioned in the repudiation letter Ex. R3 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.80,000/- claimed in the complaint along with composite costs and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to pay the claim of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant as claimed in the complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                           Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Tarsem Masih Vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.                     CC/21/218 

Present:       Sh. Dinesh Katyal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Learned counsel for the OPs closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to pay the claim of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant as claimed in the complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.